ESCROMATO PRIVATE LTD. Vs. SUMA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The flip-flop of the Oil Company and its unsatisfactory stand in relation to allotment of the LPG Distributorship has triggered litigations that were avoidable. In the process the customers of the locality were deprived of the benefit of having a LPG distributor at Chanditala, District-Hooghly for the last six years.

(2.) The appellant and the private respondent had responded to the said notice in respect of Serial No.14 which relates to LPG Distributorship at Chanditala, District-Hooghly in unreserved category. By communication dated 8th January, 2015, the writ petitioner was informed that two candidates were found eligible for draw of selection of LPG Distributorship. By a further communication also dated 8th January, 2015, nine candidates were found to be ineligible, the appellant, was one of them. The appellant did not challenge the communication dated 8th January, 2015. As natural consequence of the earlier communication dated 8th January, 2015, it is only natural and expected that a draw would take place between the eligible candidate and thereafter necessary steps are to be taken for allotting LPG Distributorship to the successful candidate. Surprisingly for almost three and half months, the Oil Company did nothing. The Oil Company contended that Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India by a letter dated 20th April, 2015 addressed to the Oil Companies have requested the said companies to keep in abeyance draws/redraws for selection of regular distributorship location advertised prior to March, 2015. If the larger public interest were considered for deferment in the first place, we find no reason for the Oil Company to take almost one and half years to prepare a list of eligible candidates and then again waited three and half months for the draw of lots. However, this communication of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India dated 20th April, 2015 has been shown as an excuse for not going ahead with the advertisement in time. The Oil Company appears to have contended before the learned Single Judge as well as before us that Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India by a communication dated 25th April, 2016 addressed to the Oil Companies informed them that for the locations which were due for draw/redraw, the Oil Companies should conduct scrutiny of application forms with the Guide Lines of March, 2015 pertaining to (a) ownership of land (b) approach road (c) Funds in bank and (d) lease period reckoning. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was prior to March, 2015. The eligibility criteria of the candidates have to be decided on the basis of the existing norms and/or guidelines of 2013 and not on the basis of guideline of March, 2015. In between there was no guideline. It was on the basis of the then existing norms, the appellant was found ineligible. This time, the Oil Company with reference to the communication dated 25th February, 2016 prepared another list which included two more names on the purported ground that on the basis of March, 2015 guidelines, the appellant becomes eligible. The eligibility criteria in respect of the two new persons, one of whom is the appellant, was on the basis of Clause 7.2(X) the guidelines of 2015 by which the advertised location was stated as "within the municipal/town/ village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column to location in the advertisement". However, in the 2013 Guideline it only refers to advertised location or locality and the Oil Company on the basis of such guideline found the writ petition eligible along with another person.

(3.) It is not in dispute that there exists a separate and distinct Mouza, namely, Mouza Chanditala. The documents furnished by the writ petitioner in the writ application in support of his candidature also shows that the writ petitioner owes the land in question in Mouza Chanditala as opposed to the land document furnished by the appellant to show his eligibility. In course of argument, the Oil Company has contended that the land of the appellant would also come within the purview of location Chanditala, Hooghly as in district Hooghly, there are two Blocks, namely, Chanditala-I and Chanditala-II and since the land for the showroom as proposed by the appellant is situated at Mouza - Kalachara, Chanditala, the appellant is also eligible to participate in the tender.